As to Libby, the indictment is devastating. If the facts alleged are true--and they are evidently based on the testimony of a considerable number of witnesses--they can't be chalked up to inadvertence, misstatement or differing recollections. The indictment alleges that Libby had a number of conversations with various people in the executive branch, from Vice-President Cheney on down, about the fact that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. It alleges further that Libby had conversations with several reporters in which Plame's CIA employment was discussed.

If Rove is not indicted, what we have here is a terrible human tragedy affecting one man, Scooter Libby, but not a serious problem for the administration. On the contrary, it is evident from the indictment itself that administration officials including Dick Cheney, Ari Fleischer, and others followed President Bush's order to cooperate fully with the Plame investigation. But it's premature to conclude that the administration is out of the woods until we find out what, if anything, happens to Rove. In the meantime, Libby is entitled to a presumption of innocence, notwithstanding the grim picture that the indictment paints.

I don't know what will happen next, other than that most of those who thought President Clinton's lying to a grand jury and the American people was no big deal will be telling you Libby's indictment is A VERY BIG DEAL.

Friday, October 28, 2005

According to the Associated Press, New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. acknowledged during a keynote address to the Online News Association that The Times was too slow to correct errors in stories reported by Judith Miller concerning WMD in Iraq.

A question and answer session followed, during which the AP reports:

When asked by a member of the audience whether the Times' credibility had been hurt by what the questioner termed its failure to fire Miller,(Sulzberger) responded, "No, I don't."

He added, however, "There's no question that the Times suffered in the reputation."

Confusing, isn't it?

Sulzberger is saying The Times' credibility has not been hurt by its failure to fire Miller, but there's no question The Times' reputation has suffered.

Poor Sulzberger.

But that's what happens to anyone who regularly reads Paul Krugman columns.

Naturally, we're given a lot of "inside stuff;" almost all of it from anonymous sources.

Nothing new there.

But the following sentence quoting an anonymous White House source is worth noting for the explanation it offers for the anonymity.

"This thing never got off the launching pad very well," said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because public airing of self-criticism is not encouraged in the White House.

Anonymity "because public airing of self-criticism is not encouraged in the White House."

That explanation doesn't work.

The source isn't airing "self-criticism." The source is criticizing White House management of the nomination process.

So why not a sentence like this:

"This thing never got off the launching pad very well," said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because White House staffers are discouraged from making public criticisms of colleagues just as we're discouraged from publicly criticizing colleagues here at the Post."

Legal scholars who believe judges should judge and legislators should legislate say Owen's an outstanding jurist.

Just five months ago, Owen won Senate confirmation for an appellate court seat. Her background was checked then. There'll now be a need for a further background check, but it won't have to be extensive and most likely won't turn up a "smoking gun."

So the case for prompt confirmation hearings and a Senate vote is very strong. With Owen, there's no reason why the hearings and a Senate vote can occur before the Christmas recess.

During the almost four years Senate Democrats denied Owen an up or down nomination vote, they hit her with personal attacks (Remember Sen. Tom Harkin calling her “a wacko?”) and hostile questioning.

Throughout it all, Owen was civil, informed and articulate. She'll do very well during confirmation hearings, however partisan they become.

When nominated for the appellate court, the American Bar Association awarded Owen its highest recommendation for federal judicial nominees, Well Qualified. The vote by the ABA’s nomination review committee was unanimous.

It’s very probable the ABA would again find Owen Well Qualified, something that will carry weight with a great many Americans. If the ABA doesn't, it will have to convince an awful lot of people it hasn't morphed into just another left-leaning advocacy group

The case for not nominating Owen can be stated in one sentence: Her nomination will be fiercely opposed by almost all Senate Democrats, and their allies in MSM news organizations and liberal and leftist advocacy groups.

That’s true. But given Owen's outstanding record, it’s no reason not to nominate her, especially as any other similarly well qualified nominee will also be fiercely opposed by those same people.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, let Owen's opponents do their worst; as long as her supporters do their best, she'll be confirmed.

No doubt the vote will be close. But a win is a win, and for Presidents, winning close votes usually adds to their power to lead.

When President Bush took office in Jan. 2001, many doubted he could effectively lead given the close and disputed 2000 election. But in April 2001, Bush won a 53 – 47 Senate vote that assured passage of his $1.35 trillion tax cut. Thereafter, no one doubted he could lead, save those who'll forever wave “the Florida shirt.”

With Owen as his nominee, the President can soon and with confidence present to the American people an outstanding jurist he first helped vet and then place on the appellate court bench. That can only be good for him and the country.

You can "vote" for Owen in an online poll at Reasoned Audacity. You'll have to "write her in" because it appears that as of 10/28 Reasoned Audacity "election officials" have yet to place Owen's name and photo on "the ballot."

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

With a hat tip to the Media Research Center, blogger Scott Pierce at Right in Raleigh reminds us that in 2000 independent counsel Robert Ray determined then first lady Hillary Clinton gave false testimony when questioned before a grand jury about the 1993 White House travel office firings that occurred as President Clinton took office.

If the current special prosecutor offers a similar bottom line verdict on Rove or Libby, it's not a stretch to suggest the networks would be at the front of the liberal lynch mob insisting that they lose their jobs. But five years ago they snoozed when they learned about Hillary Clinton's false testimony.

Take a look at the post, and maybe clip and save it. You can show it to your liberal friends in the next few days or in '08.

But I'll be posting this evening including a response to another email I received from the Senior Editor of The Gallup Poll and comment on how Raleigh's News & Observer reported the remarks of the Raleigh racist Kamau Kambon, who's now advocating genocide.

Democrats and their MSM pals are always complaining about people who mixing religion and politics, right? And they're always complaining about rich people tossing money around to influence elections, right?

New Jersey Sen. Jon Corzine, a former Wall Street executive with a portfolio worth $261 million, has been giving some of his money to black churches, raising questions about whether it's generosity or politics.

The Democrat, who is in a tight race for governor, donated or loaned more than $2.5 million last year to black churches. He has received the endorsement of more than two dozen black ministers.

According to one of the recipients of Corzine's largess, the money has not influenced him or his church's endorsement.

The Rev. Reginald T. Jackson, executive director of the Black Ministers Council and pastor of St. Matthew's AME Church in Orange, N.J., said black ministers have been making personal endorsements of candidates since 1981. The council does not make endorsements.

Jackson's church has received thousands of dollars from Corzine over several years, including a $50,000 loan last year.

In their endorsement of Corzine last month, Jackson said the black ministers chose the Democrat because he "will be a leader of a state at two extremes — at one end the wealthiest state in the nation and at the other end one of the poorest states in the nation."

Hmmm!

Where are all the liberals in and out of the media? Don't they have any concern about religion, money and politics being so tightly mixed? Shouldn't they be especially concerned about the mix when it's happening right in their own political house, so to speak?

Where are Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi? They should speak out and condemn what Corzine and the ministers are doing even if doing so upsets the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

I think the White House then and now is just making a bad situation worse.

Below is White House contact information. Do your part to convince folks there that when a ship's been hit by a torpedo, the emergency response pumps are for getting water off the ship, not bringing more on board.

(W)hen it comes to public policy, Europe has taken a wrong turn. Its welfare state has sapped initiative and driven jobs abroad. Its treatment of immigrants is shameful. Unemployment is in the double digits, health policy is making people sicker, and foreign policy is based on isolationism and moral posturing.

The results are predictable: The countries that use the euro will grow 1.2 percent this year, according to The Economist; the United States will grow 3.5 percent. Similar disparity has prevailed for a decade, and Americans today have a living standard about one-third higher. The notion that Europe will be able to compete with resurgent China and India in the next 30 years is laughable.

Turning from Europe to America, Glassman asks:

Is it inevitable that, as we grow more prosperous, we will become more like Europe - losing initiative, insisting that our governments coddle us? I worry that we are beginning to see the initial signs of just such a turn for the worse.

Initial signs of just such a turn? I think we've been making the turn for decades but I'll save that for another day.

Glassman says to get out of the turn America needs a mix of government policies and personal initiative. Government policies should include increased emphasis on science education, rejection of protectionist trade practices, and a restructuring of corporate taxes so American companies can better compete in international markets.

About personal initiative Glassman believes:

The personal counts more (than government action). America has a choice: more like Europe, or more like Asia. Actually, Asia has become more like America in recent years, so the real choice is whether we want to be complacent Europeans or our hard-working, compassionate, imaginative American selves.

Glassman over generalizes in that last paragraph. Many Europeans are anything but complacent, and many Americans are anything but hard-working, compassionate and imaginative in the constructive sense Glassman means.

Glassman provides a lot of information and a reasoned argument to convince Americans we need to watch where we're going lest we wind up where we didn't want to be.